Home » News » The Defense Biz » Updated F-1 Could Replace RD-180 Rocket Engine

Updated F-1 Could Replace RD-180 Rocket Engine

by Brendan McGarry on September 4, 2014

AR-1

A proposed U.S. rocket engine similar to the iconic Apollo-era F-1 could replace the Russian technology found on many American military boosters, according to the firms behind its design.

What’s more, it could be compatible with both Pentagon and NASA rockets, so the same propulsion system that may someday send astronauts to Mars could also be used to launch military and spy satellites, they say.

The new engine, a liquid oxygen and kerosene-fueled system known as the AR-1, would be smaller than the F-1 that powered the Saturn V rocket, but have higher performance and provide some 500,000 pounds of thrust, according to Steve Cook, director of corporate development at Huntsville, Alabama-based Dynetics, which has partnered with Aerojet Rocketdyne to design the technology.

“Imagine taking a big old F-1 and being able to put it in a much more compact unit and get much more performance out of it,” he said in a telephone interview.

Under a contract for a program called Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction, engineers at Dynetics in October 2012 began working on ways to lower risk — and thus cost — associated with building a future first-stage engine for the NASA’s Space Launch System, the rocket designed to carry astronauts to the moon, asteroids and eventually Mars.

The SLS will use solid rocket engines left over from the space shuttle and may transition to LOX-kerosene systems. NASA in 2011 retired the shuttle and currently relies on Russia for rides to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz rockets at almost $70 million per seat.

Last year, at NASA’s request, Dynetics expanded the work to include modifying the design to also serve as a possible replacement to the Russian-made RD-180, used as a first-stage engine on the Atlas V in the Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.

Rising tensions between the U.S. and Russia over the latter’s invasion and subsequent annexation of the Ukraine’s Crimea region earlier this year has drawn calls from some lawmakers and officials to end American reliance on Russia for access to space.

While Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James has said deliveries of the RD-180 engine continue without interruption, she is also exploring ways to fund the development of a potential replacement — and trying to open national-security launches to competition. The market is currently dominated by a Lockheed Martin Corp.-Boeing Co. joint venture called United Launch Alliance LLC, which makes the Atlas V and Delta IV family of boosters.

In the 1990s, with the shuttle making regular trips to the space station, domestic investment in LOX-hydrocarbon booster technology fell off dramatically, Cook said. “We basically outsourced it to the Russians,” he said.

If the Air Force decides to move forward with a similar risk-reduction and technology development program as NASA, a prototype of the AR-1 could be ready in 2–1/2 years and “get to a full-up operational engine by 2019,” Cook said.

Other companies such as SpaceX, Orbital Sciences Corp., Blue Origin and, of course, the incumbent, ULA, will likely vie for any new government funding or program to develop a successor engine.

Share |

{ 64 comments… read them below or add one }

Will September 4, 2014 at 3:54 pm

You'd think after so many decades we'd be able to produce our own rocket engines. So sad.

Reply

Ryan September 4, 2014 at 5:21 pm

We do make rocket engines. We don't make *some* rocket engines. Big difference.

Reply

gopher65 September 5, 2014 at 7:39 pm

The US State Department really pushed to have Russian engines used. They knew the Russians were going to be selling off a lot of old Soviet hardware, and they wanted to make sure it didn't get into the "wrong hands". So you can blame them (in part) for the fact that Russian engines are being used.

Reply

ghostwhowalksnz September 5, 2014 at 7:55 pm

Its the technology, the russians had a more efficent design.

Reply

Mastro September 8, 2014 at 12:48 am

Yeah- it was a Yeltsin- or early Putin- era decision.

Worked for about 10 years- but is damn awkward now.

Reply

Mastro September 8, 2014 at 12:55 am

Back in the mid- late '90's we thought Russia was just going to be a big business partner- before it became the KGB/organized crime country it is today.

Reply

Bernard September 4, 2014 at 4:11 pm

We should be using American rockets to launch American equipment. Especially for things that are vital for our defense.

We have companies that can do this work, we should be using them.

Reply

curious September 4, 2014 at 5:20 pm

American rockets, like the one exploded over Texas a few days ago?

I think you meant to say "WE should be using American rockets to ruin American equipment, especially for things that are vital for our defense."

Have you experienced any problems with Russian rockets so far?

Reply

Bernard September 4, 2014 at 6:11 pm

I have a huge problem with Russian rockets and it starts with Vladimir Putin. We should not depend on equipment from an adversarial nation. Regardless, that controlled detonation you mentioned what was a saftey measure. That's how testing works. I wouldn't care if they all explode, as long as it's American. If we can't build them then we need to fix that, there is no excuse for us.

Reply

@ScienceAdvisor_ September 4, 2014 at 9:08 pm

Space X has 100% reliability regarding payloads to orbit.

A prototype self destructed when it went off course.

Get it together, pal.

Reply

Bud Brandsen September 5, 2014 at 9:16 am

That's not entirely true.

While Space X has enjoyed success with Falcon 9, the vehicle that was going to change the satellite launch industry didn't fare as well.

As a matter of fact, their first 3 launches were failures.

Launch 1 – Falconsat-1 (DARPA)
Launch 2 – Demosat (DARPA)
Launch 3 – Trailblazer (ORS)
– PRESat (NASA)
– NanoSail-D (NASA)
– Explorers (Celestis)

All were orbital payloads and were lost.
Space X is an impressive success story, but, let's not rewrite history.

Reply

@ScienceAdvisor_ September 4, 2014 at 9:09 pm
jef September 4, 2014 at 9:42 pm
Ben September 4, 2014 at 10:05 pm

That was an experimental rocket testing vertical launch and vertical landing, not the same proven Falcon 9 that they use for orbit launches…

Reply

Nostradamus September 5, 2014 at 12:03 pm

How about the fact that when the Russian decide to ban their export to the US, we would be left with no capability to launch our on stuff for many years until one is fully develop and certified in our soil. Should we wait until that happens?

Can you confirm that no Russian rockets have exploded during launch in during the past decade? The Russian do ruin Russian equipment with Russian rockets mind you. Refer to http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russian-proton-m… for history lesson.

You need to look beyond today while applying the lessons from history. We should never be dependent on others to maintain our capabilities to protect our nation. Especially in troubled times like nowadays.

Reply

tiger September 4, 2014 at 5:03 pm

"Our Germans are better than their Germans….." –The Right Stuff

Reply

wise up September 11, 2014 at 11:21 pm

that's like saying their feces smell better in my house than in their house.

Reply

Andy September 4, 2014 at 5:28 pm

That what happen when you OUT SOURCES ….you become a morons and depend on other…..

Reply

curious September 4, 2014 at 5:52 pm

Like bringing in NAZI scientists and engineers to design and develop rocket engines?

Reply

Andy September 4, 2014 at 7:15 pm

American Scientist are not good enought ?

Reply

Ben September 4, 2014 at 10:06 pm

Not during and immediately after WWII.

History. Do you know it?

Reply

Andy September 5, 2014 at 4:04 pm

who atlking about WWII, this is 2014 dude.

tiger September 5, 2014 at 11:49 am

Americans would rather play beer pong & go to Saturday football than sit in a Thermodynamics class. Sorry, I remember college. Most of my peers were in bull crap majors like art history. Not sitting at 8pm in a statistics course. In fact I had 6 guys from Kuwait in class.

Reply

blight_qwerty September 5, 2014 at 4:27 pm

Don't go to the higher state university system. Go to the intermediate one, or the state colleges instead. In california, that would be the CSU system versus the UC system. I had the fortune of going to one of the Polytechnics.

Bruce September 5, 2014 at 1:50 am

Silly comment, everyone that could grabbed NAZI scientists, this is not a USA-specific thing.

Reply

Dfens September 5, 2014 at 11:18 am

It's funny, you can't call someone who swam the Rio Grande to get into this country an "illegal immigrant" these days, but you can slur someone who immigrated to this country legally and designed a successful rocket program to land the first human on the moon as a Nazi. I'm sure feckless is lucky if he can get off the couch to microwave some popcorn let alone do something that would actually count toward making this nation great.

Reply

Pat September 5, 2014 at 9:42 am

Damn right, they were the best! Better here than working for the Russians.

Reply

Jim Hillhouse September 5, 2014 at 12:45 pm

The F-1 was not developed by the Germans from Paper Clip—it’s as all-American as you can get.

Reply

Jack Hagerty September 13, 2014 at 9:37 pm

That is correct. It actually started out as an advanced Air Force heavy lift booster program around 1958. It was well along in design when tapped to power the Apollo programs "big gun." Of course, that was being lead by NASA Marshall, home of von Braun's team.

Reply

Aleksandar011 September 5, 2014 at 2:42 pm

NAZI scientists, you mean like Helmut Gröttrup and many other German rocket scientists which worked for Soviet? And don't forget Nazis which worked on Soviet nuclear program: Manfred von Ardenne(got Stalin prize twice, and Lenin prize in 1970), Peter Adolf Thiessen, Max Christian Theodor Steenbeck, Gernot Zippe(centrifuge isotope separation) and many others. Over 300 Nazis worked in Soviet nuclear program mostly on Isotope separation. Methods they developed were used by Soviet Union, Germany, Pakistan are currently by Iran!

Reply

William_C1 September 4, 2014 at 5:28 pm

This is worth serious consideration. More power = more payload.

Reply

rtsy September 4, 2014 at 8:14 pm

What's with all the anti-russia stuff? The article says the company designing the AR-1 is based in Alabama. Last I checked that was in America. You should be saying, "Hooray! We're getting it right!" instead of complaining that we aren't.

Reply

DDP September 5, 2014 at 7:59 am

Re-read the article. We have been relying on Russian RD-180s for years now.
This is a strategic mistake. We used to build great things, where has all that American can do know how gone?

Reply

oldfedvet1941 September 5, 2014 at 9:46 am

Thanks to the current Administration and the Idiot in the White House!

Reply

Dfens September 5, 2014 at 11:24 am

Actually it was the idiot before the the last idiot.

Reply

Dec September 7, 2014 at 10:02 am

What about the idiots who voted in the elections?

IronV September 5, 2014 at 6:59 pm

The Obama administration wasn't party to any of the decisions to use Russian rocket motors. But they may well get us out of it…

Reply

Jim Hillhouse September 5, 2014 at 8:02 pm

The resurrection of the F-1 was because of the SLS program and therefore despite, not because of, actions by the Obama White House and some of their political appointees in NASA. Recall that it was those appointees who, in their efforts to oppose the SLS program by not submitting the Section 309 Report as required in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, got NASA for the first time served a Congressional subpoena from the Senate Commerce Committee controlled by their own Party, a Committee only days away from a contempt of Congress motion, which would have been another first for the space agency. And those same former political appointees continue to voice their desire to kill the SLS program, which is in part funding the F-1 work.

tiger September 5, 2014 at 11:57 am

Space is a narrow marketplace. Building boosters is costly, technical & not a high profit biz. You have gone from a dozen players in the old days to basically just LockMart today.

Reply

derp September 5, 2014 at 12:36 pm

the article is about the update of an old engine. way too focus on the bad stuff

Reply

Dfens September 5, 2014 at 6:53 pm

This is just a bunch of companies angling for another big development program. You and I take all the risk, and they make all the profit. How about we have a good old fashioned competition for who makes the next great American made rocket engine? Show up at the test stand two years from next Tuesday and the best engine for the best price wins.

That will never work. No welfare for the rich involved.

Reply

paperpushermj September 10, 2014 at 10:55 am

And who pays for the hundreds of millions of dollars in Engine development for the losers in your world? If you say the developers do, don't expect many to show up.

Reply

Dfens September 10, 2014 at 11:30 am

Funny how SpaceX could design their own rocket engine, but a multinational defense corporation worth hundreds of billions of dollars can only develop a new rocket if all the risk is on the back of the US taxpayer.

Reply

paperpushermj September 10, 2014 at 2:01 pm

SpaceX receives Gov. Money

Reply

Dfens September 10, 2014 at 2:35 pm

Yes, they sell rockets to the government and the government pays them money. That does not negate the fact that SpaceX designed and tested their rocket engines on their own dime. When things went wrong, SpaceX spent their own money fixing the flaws in their design. They didn't put all the risk on the US taxpayer's back, they shouldered it themselves. Is that concept somehow beyond your comprehension?

IronV September 5, 2014 at 7:01 pm

The amazing Apollo/Saturn program bears new fruit. What a great concept backed by superior design, development and manufacturing. Hats off to our Dads once again.

Reply

Andrew LePage September 6, 2014 at 9:42 am

The decline in American innovation in rocket technology has been going on for decades with few exceptions. Hopefully programs like this and SpaceX developments with the Merlin and still larger engines marks the turning point.
http://www.drewexmachina.com/2014/06/09/a-history

Reply

Andrzej Kotarski September 6, 2014 at 12:18 pm

I agree, that the reliance on others in vital issues ends bad. Especially in space. The example of space actors, that are going own way and are not dependable on external sources only like China and India are the example that crucial competences shouldn't be outsourced. Including all stages of the chain of value of space technologies. From the design to operational phase and disposal.

Reply

Dec September 7, 2014 at 10:08 am

Any of you here wondering what happened to an "updated F-1" during the Space Shuttle program?

The F in F-1 stands for Failure.

Reply

wise up September 11, 2014 at 11:35 pm

You are obviously stating a rhetorical question.

The Shuttle program was for real because, while being expensive and challenging, it was technologically manageable.

The Apollo program, on the other hand, was for show and propaganda from the early beginning because they knew that the technology involved simply could not be acquired in a matter of years. To this very day, the technology is not there. When GW Bush was announcing a plan to "return to the Moon", he put the year to 2025. That was in 2006 or 2007? So 18 years of preparation for a mission that took less than 8 years in 1960s?

Anyone with some common sense should have smelled a rat right there.

Reply

Known Ranger September 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm

The original proposal to USG for EELV called for US-built RD-180. Unfortunately Boeing theft of LM data caused great upheaval in initial EELV award/penalty to Boeing and caused subsequent ULA formation between LM and Boeing. US built RD-180 was dropped none the less.

Reply

footyfoot September 9, 2014 at 12:01 am

The SSME was not an upgraded F-1. Not even on the same development path. But Dec is most certainly a troll.

Reply

wise up September 11, 2014 at 11:19 pm

If you agree with what Dec is saying and call him a troll, then you are more of a troll than he is, for obvious reasons.

Reply

scott September 9, 2014 at 4:50 pm

I read something on Ars Technica about this I believe:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-b

Pretty nice story, handcrafted engines. Imagine losing those skills. It happens over and over again as history repeats itself.

Reply

equideow Hack September 22, 2014 at 9:27 pm

Quest of Legends est free of charge-to-play mais les joueurs peuvent
utiliser des micro-transactions pour l’achat
de nouvelles armes, l’équipement et les types de l’item store in-recreation.

Reply

equideow triche September 23, 2014 at 12:38 am

D’autres personnes cherchent à pirater des comptes pour nuire aux autres, par vengeance.

Reply

Whatsapp hacken September 23, 2014 at 1:16 am

If you take place to want all WhatsApp Informations of the
individual, here is your Device to acheive it.
That is the suitable Instrument to study what your mates are speaking about you, or if
your lady- or boyfriend is cheating!

Reply

marvel Avengers alliance cheats September 23, 2014 at 2:01 am

I’m not that much of a internet reader to be honest but your blogs really nice, keep it up!
I’ll go ahead and bookmark your site to come back in the future.

Cheers

Reply

My Free Zoo Hack September 23, 2014 at 2:35 am

Hi there, You’ve done a fantastic job. I will certainly digg it and personally suggest
to my friends. I’m sure they will be benefited from this site.

Reply

Dec September 7, 2014 at 1:17 am

Yes, it's 2014 and American scientists are still not good enough.

satisfied?

Reply

Ziv September 8, 2014 at 1:06 pm

It is idiots all the way down!

Reply

paperpushermj September 10, 2014 at 4:49 pm

Hate to pop your bubble…well not really!

" But SpaceX’s research and development is largely funded by taxpayers. The real kicker is that if, and when, SpaceX’s development is complete, NASA will not own the technology, SpaceX will own it. What exactly is NASA buying?"
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/2

Reply

Dfens September 11, 2014 at 9:55 am

Repeating internet lies does not make them true.

Reply

paperpushermj September 11, 2014 at 10:23 am

And Denial is not just a River in Africa.
I give supportive information and you give your opinion.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: